"The great purveyors of Truth will not be found in the newspapers or academic hierarchy, but among those who devote their time to the betterment of the nation by constant investigation and the process of elimination, until all that is left is the bare reality." D Cohen
The modern means of revolution only needs to be through knowledge. Repeating the same basic truths is like hammering in a nail until the information becomes set. When enough people do the revolution is here.

Tuesday, 17 November 2015

I was asked recently what’s the ultimate basis behind my
work, and the simple reply was freedom. It is something we can all relate to,
humans and animals, and when it is removed or restricted it is either for a
reason of safety or personal development, and if not then punishment.

So as removal of freedom is one of the most universal
punishments known to man, along with assault and causing death, its existence
is held to be the ultimate situation in life, next to life itself when compared
with the death sentence. Knowing this, then why do governments throughout
history do all they can to reduce and restrict our freedoms, using the Hegelian
dialectic, that the alternative is worse. The alternative that rarely even
exists but they knew they could create as the means to get the majority who
sadly do not think for themselves to hand over their freedom. To quote Benjamin
Franklin, those who give their freedom for security deserve neither.

I do find many people are so lost in this vision that I
found I needed to list examples of the difference between imposed restrictions
‘in the name of work, health and safety’ and their removal. By applying
everyday and ordinary examples then I hope everyone can relate to their own
life situations and realise there simply aren’t many times any such
restrictions are appropriate or beneficial.

Work and driving are my personal favourites. Driving is the
ultimate freedom until humans learn to fly (literally or mechanically). It
allows everyone, including the elderly and disabled, to have the opportunity to
travel wherever and whenever they need or want with absolutely no need for
other people to rely on, timetables, routes and the like. The late 20th
century saw growing restrictions on driving, from closed roads in Camden to the Tory
Kenneth Clark introduction of road humps and the related road narrowings. As
speed is not the primary cause of accidents (otherwise why do country lanes
have a 60mph limit?) but lack of concentration, selfishness and alcohol (check
the figures), then the false premise of 20mph zones whatever the restrictions
added to create them, and the same restrictions on officially 30mph roads where
you’ll wreck your car if you drive over 15mph are clearly for some other
purpose. When I decided using logic maybe the councils wanted to do it to put
people off driving altogether (forgetting all vehicles use these dreadful
roads, including buses and emergency vehicles), soon afterwards the EU plan to
ban urban driving by 2050 came out. No coincidence really.

Barnet council broke the mould, uniquely to my knowledge,
when they decided to remove the humps and restrictions, much like Liverpool council just set the precedent to remove the
bus lanes. A road a mile or so long I used to use to visit my grandma had been
given mini roundabouts at every junction, slowing the traffic on a road with no
buildings along it every few hundred yards for absolutely no reason. When
overnight it seemed they disappeared it simply became a road again rather than
an obstacle course. Accident figures are recorded by law when injuries are
caused, and the most injuries come in the same borough from the deaths from
emergency vehicles being slowed down by road humps, meaning the councils are
actually causing more harm than benefit. Knowing this officially what does it
tell you about the councils?

Work is the other example in my life, with the standard
story of my family’s shop manager, who had a weekly timetable which basically
meant when you weren’t serving a customer you’d be dealing with the stock,
every single moment of the day. The work was exhausting and demoralising, but
we assumed it was necessary for a busy international shop in the centre of London, till the week the
manager went on holiday, we did the work when it was needed, and over the
fortnight he was away everything he made us do got done in about a day instead
of a week. We all then realised the reason the timetable was there is he
believed no one should be paid to do nothing, so he simply created the work to
make everyone earn their wages rather than relax and work better when they were
needed to.

Animals without any speech express freedom the most
graphically. The contrast of animals in cages, something to me which is one of
the lowest levels of human behaviour, to when they are released, or when the
cat or dog is returned from the kennels and bounds out of the car to run around
the garden after being locked up for a week or two tells you pretty much all
you need to know about the basic principle. If every government was based on
this principle then every restriction would be a last resort, rather than their
entire motivation.

Imagine the difference in your life if freedom was known as
the prime motivation for all aspects of life. Rather than impose discipline as
a default in schools onwards, people would have to work out through any
required means to only apply it when nothing else would work. Respect of other
people is one example- punctuality, carrying out your duties etc, using the
other golden rule to treat others as you’d want to be treated yourself, could
be started with outside discipline in school and home, but be replaced by self
discipline as with early enough training such principles would become second
nature. That would ideally be carried through to work and family life, where
people would do their jobs properly not because they had to but because they
knew they should. Freedom of speech would also be protected unless it actually
encouraged people to hurt others, so David Cameron’s two attempts (succeeding
the second time) to ban causing offence, a victimless and technically harmless
act, and one so widely interpreted it could effectively close down any negative
speech in public and possibly private if reported. We are all offended by other
people’s words from school onwards, and that is our problem for caring what
idiots think, as much as theirs for being idiots. But being an idiot is a
personal problem and should not become illegal.

So logic dictates the bare minimum of examples where it is
necessary to restrict our freedom for a greater cause. Public health,
protecting customers from poisoning by food products, restricting the spread of
illnesses etc are pretty obvious and why anyone would want the freedom to sell
bad food or sabotage it is anyone’s guess. But they all come under the golden
rule and common sense. Working hours can be flexible where lives don’t depend
on it, files don’t evaporate when not put away on time, and people can easily
be employed to share jobs and arrange the hours between them to allow for
children and other personal time when they would otherwise have to be working.
Banning cars or making driving difficult affects everyone, like poisoning the
air with geoengineering. Even the politicians are held up on the same roads as
the plebs they legislate for, so why do they do it? Misanthropy is the root of
most such rules, followed by exercise of power simply because they can. Two
dangerous and primitive motivations, loved by politicians of all eras.

I believe once people learn the simple message they will
quickly and easily wake up. Just imagining the difference between a journey
before they narrowed the local roads and sent people on complex diversions is a
good start. The extend that to your life. Wouldn’t you rather get to all your appointments
easily rather than change buses (London split all their long routes presumably
to collect two sets of fares for people going across the new boundary), be able
to take time off work without official warnings, and not be taxed on both what
you earn above a certain amount or what you spend beyond the bare minimum? Who
earned the money? Most of the time you did. You probably studied for a few
years, even if just for GCE exams, in order to work, and then the hours you
work on top increase your earnings, or amount you sell that people buy because
you provide things they need or want, and the government not only take the bare
minimum they need to maintain the roads (which will soon be empty), health
service, and support those unable to support themselves, they take more because
they think it’s wrong for people to have ‘too much’.

Misanthropy returns, punishing those who succeed is another
formula we need to consign to history, and wipe out simply through education
that it is the exact opposite motivation people need in their short lives to
strive to success. If you give up trying as your tenth painting will get you a
tenth as much profit when you sell it as your first, then you may give up
painting more than a few per year as why bother when you don’t get much back
for the others which took you just as long to create? Or do another music tour
bringing pleasure to thousands as you’ve reached the top tax threshold level.
Like it or not the more money you have the more freedom it offers, so
effectively by making it harder to have more than a certain amount under
socialism then they are restricting the freedom of those who have done more to
earn than their peers. This never means their peers can do and have more, just
that they have almost as little as they do.

As a counsellor part of my work is getting people to take
back their personal freedom. Who actually has the power to tell others what to
do? Their parents, their employers, their governments and their teachers. But
from that list one is different, the government. Those with the most power do
not have it because they are royalty and aristocracy, at least not any more,
but because we employ them (paid for directly from our taxes) to handle issues
we can’t ourselves. Not to rule us. Using the minimal interference rule then
parenting and employment should only make the fewest rules and allow people to
use their own abilities to schedule the work, and if they can’t then the
employer should have the freedom to sack them as they can’t do the job. It
works both ways. Education is as much about self discipline, so only really
needs to make sure students don’t disrupt classes, if they don’t turn up they
are only hurting themselves. Hopefully by now I have created a picture of every
aspect relating to the single root principle, and explained why in every case
there is no need to use more than the bare minimum of restrictions, and this
includes taxes and rules applying to work, laws and any other area of human
activity. You hate having your freedom restricted, so why should other people
have it when it doesn’t affect you? And when I hear the voices shouting from
the viewers ‘What about global warming’, something which has caused the most
restrictions on everyday lives worldwide since the fall of the Soviet Union,
I’d say to watch my first interview on the UN and big society, and discover
that was the biggest illusion created to cause the greatest loss of freedom
ever encountered by humanity, as it is being applied equally in every UN member
state worldwide whether you are aware of it or not, China has just come on
board this week. If anyone seriously believes the aims of the Kyoto Protocol of
1992, to basically reduce demand for energy, by making it more expensive and
less available, can be an improvement on the effects of a slightly warmer
planet outside our lifetimes needs another session at school. This is no
different to reducing demand for food, water and air itself. If they could they
would, but food is becoming more expensive, meat is being made less attractive
as cattle farming is alleged to contribute too much CO2 so is also being
discouraged, and many farms in Africa have
been cleared to grow biofuel, mainly corn and palm oil, to burn food in engines
not designed to use them. Vans and lorries over a certain age are banned in London despite passing the MoT emission tests, and cars in
Paris, as all
major changes are now carried out in gradual stages so people don’t realise
what’s happening till it’s too late. Making essentials such as energy, food and
travel harder is making everyone’s life harder, and for what? Pretending they
can control the earth’s temperature. As I said about the Incas, thousands of
years may pass but humanity has not changed a jot.

Question every attempt to make your life harder. Do they
really need to do it? Why are they making something you’ve always done
impossible or much more difficult? Why have the new rules at work been brought
in and do they really make the firm more productive? Do not accept a single
attempt to interfere with your normal activities of life. Who has the right to
stop you moving around freely or take more of your money than they need for
their requirements? You have given every single one of these people your power
except your parents, you can change schools or employers if they do not treat
you the way you want to be, and certainly get rid of every politician as they
are our servants, not our rulers.

Simple principles, easily understood, and resonate with
every living being on the planet.

Here is the text used by my third interview with Mark Windows plus more detail.

3rd interview: Breaking illusions:

As a child growing up we start to discover many new ideas,
mainly from politics. Fairness, redistribution of wealth, equality, all
apparently good concepts designed to help people. The second stage, assuming we
ever reach it, is to start applying these ideas and looking more closely into
them, after which we may well discover they are not as clear as they seem, and
quite often actually worse than the alternative. Redistribution of wealth means
there is X amount of wealth, all owned in different amounts, and simply removed
from those with the most, and not even given to the rest directly, but just
goes to the government, just like the estate of a person without a will or
family. No one wants that, so who would want better off people (who worked for
it rather than stole it somehow) to simply hand over much of their capital for
an unknown and unknowable fate, just to make the worse off people feel they may
get something out of it.

For me the turning point was the black and white clearly
wrong issue, when they planned bus lanes for my area in the 70s. As a teenager
I hadn’t yet comprehended the lack of space in town, so imagined the buses
getting their own new roads. When they arrived soon after I discovered all they
did was take a lane from existing roads meaning there was less space for 95% of
the traffic and a spare lane which was hardly ever used, causing jams from that
day onwards wherever they are. Including buses, as most wait behind where they
start while all the traffic comes to a halt moving over to the outside lane.

I have already dealt with low interest rates in my last
interview, and will just remind people they help maybe a quarter of the
population at best, as even the ones with mortgages pay more either when they
buy their house as it will cost more, or when they sell it as the others will
cost more, so they won’t save anything in the long run as everything they did
will be lost through the directly connected price inflation. I will add as many
as I can think of which use the single process of not accepting the wrapping on
the surface but peeling it off to see the worms or worse underneath.

Credit cards are fairly definitive. The old saying, how many
bankers own credit cards (answer, almost none) should speak for itself. If a
retailer would not touch their own products with a bargepole (I’m guessing the
same applies for the current trend of solar panels) then why would anyone else?
There is no function for credit cards (the insurance they come with can be
found on many other cards without borrowing money to get it), as if you have
the money then you don’t need to borrow to buy things, and if you don’t then
sooner or later you’ll almost certainly fall back and end up paying more
interest or defaulting, and losing it all in costs. Before the first one people
simply waited till they had the money before going shopping. There was and is
hire purchase, which at least limits your impatience to a single item rather
than an open door, and if it’s not a loan to make more money by selling a good
deal on offer for a short period then you don’t need that either. That holiday
or car can wait, and if you can’t afford it now then the added expenses of a
car or holiday will roll up on top and you’ve already committed a hundred a month
or something for three years out of the clearly little money you’ve got coming
in. Why pay more for something today than save and buy it tomorrow anyway, is
anything that vital for a one off, let alone a lifestyle?

Pyramid schemes, legal or not, are perfect examples of
something even rich and famous actors lose thousands on, although there is only
one version. The only difference is the size of the pyramid and amount put in,
but a pyramid scheme of a typical 15 triangle (4,3,2,1) where four pay one and
everyone else moves up means whenever the money runs out then 14 people lose
for every winner. That’s the mathematical formula, so it’s the same as betting
on two numbers in roulette, you’ve got a 1/18 or so chance of winning 18 times
your stake, and put money in a pyramid scheme, and as all will run out of new
people as each level multiplies the required number of new arrivals like rice
grains on a chessboard, reaching trillions by the time you may get a payout,
it’s a gamble not worth playing. Yet every new one still gets supposedly
professional adults chucking their money away as they never wrote down the
formula and worked out the chances of winning.

They also have some formulas which are so blatant it’s
incredible most people still swallow them partly as they are too busy to look
closely enough to see what’s being done. Affirmative action, otherwise known as
positive discrimination, is one current policy forcing its way into the BBC and
EU, making people employ 20% ethnic minorities as it represents British
society, and a minimum number of female large company directors. This means
they are not employing the best people for the job but forcing one out to make
way for a token ethnic or female candidate, who ought to be as offended being
taken on purely as they ticked a box, rather than because they would have got
the job anyway. Police candidates are turned away as they’re only employing
ethnic candidates till they reach their quota. How insulting is it to be ‘part
of a quota’- “I got my job because I was part of a quote, but my qualifications
weren’t really good enough”. That’s a real crowd pleaser isn’t it. And
discrimination is pretty universal, you can’t discriminate who you discriminate
against, or shouldn’t if you’ve accepted it as a principle, so as some wonk has
decided Britain is 20% ethnic minorities and the BBC at least will have to
reflect it, regardless of even the number of applicants, as with women
directors the studies prove they simply don’t want to do it that much. But that
means football and other sports ought to represent it as well. What’s that,
they already do? Really? So if you were to take the entire football league and
apply the BBC rule then you’d have to presumably hold back from taking on
ethnic applicants till it represented society, surely if the formula is correct
it must be applied equally to all? Or have I missed something?

I think the principle here is the most important thing to
learn, and the examples can easily be extended to things like rationing and
market manipulation, where instead of relying on a legally enforced free
market, governments hold back commodities to keep prices up (since when were
good prices a good idea, houses or otherwise?), or not let third world people
eat or profit from their natural resources as their rulers keep it all for
themselves or sell it abroad for profit, or don’t provide a system to import
and distribute it? Therefore when the west ration and fiddle commodity prices
as they look to the third world to imagine there can’t be enough of the basics
we all need, the figures prove there was always more than enough but no one
will either allow the average citizens to earn enough to buy it or even bother
to sell it locally there as there’s more profit in the developed world. That is
an insidious political policy which looks like they are conserving valuable
resources by limiting their availability worldwide, but all they are really
doing is imposing the same policies which cause third world famines and power
cuts on their own people by restricting access to food, power and whatever else
they say is running out at the moment, and people think they’re doing them a
favour.

Equality is a related illusion. As I’ve said before, each
life is equal, but every person is different and unique. So treat everyone equally
but don’t expect them to run the same race without winners and losers, and as
each career and life is different then few people are even in the same race, so
each can win their own simply by fulfilling their potential and being
persistent. Positive discrimination is one example of enforced equality, while
comprehensive schools and high taxation are others, all solid socialist
principles and all failing to improve the natural situation minus government
interference. Try it for yourself. How many socialist politicians are
millionaires, send their children to private schools and use accountants to
save paying tax Tony Blair and family? Just like the credit cards, how many
socialist rulers live the way they try to make you? Look some up if you don’t
believe me, or read Toby Young’s story of his left wing millionaire father Lord
Young spending many evenings with his millionaire socialist academic friends
discussing ways to reduce the money of the wealthy while drinking expensive
wine and driving home in their Rolls Royces. That’s how it works, the people
promoting all these illusory policies would never apply them to themselves, who
in sound mind would?

You can see this principle operate quite easily in sales
pitches. Again, a good business sells things people need at a fair price, and
if they do then they will thrive, as many like it do. But the many who don’t
are using the same shortage mentality, as they believe there aren’t enough
genuine customers for them so must create extra ones by cheating. Of course
this is blatant fraud, but they do it and unless you learn the tricks they will
work. Do we all need to go to what was apparently a long term legal mock
auction in Oxford Street
to learn how they work, or just learn from a single customer? The other scam
businesses vary little, they all make claims they can’t fulfil, offer more than
they can provide for less money, and inevitably you end up disappointed and
down financially. Shell games are the same, all variations on the theme, if the
dealer has two chances of winning and you have one mathematically then you must
lose, even when they aren’t cheating as well by hiding the ball under a
different shell when they lift it up.

The greatest illusion of the 21st century,
despite the true performance figures being available, are wind and solar power.
The industry manufacture them so know what they produce (eg most years the
British farms produce 80% of their full capacity for a week a year, at 6-12
times the cost). Solar can’t convert enough watts for more than 10-15% of
domestic use even in the Sahara and if anyone
thinks they can store the paltry amounts they may build up on summer days when
no one’s home for more than the odd night then sit down and do some sums. Not
forgetting the short dark winter days when you need it the most. As for the
random amounts produced by wind which can never change, combined with the
maximum conversion power per turbine, is obvious they are a waste of space,
money and resources. They can never improve or change as they can’t convert
much more than double the current few watts, and become slightly cheaper but
not compared to fossil fuel, ever. If in doubt then convert your local hospital
to wind and solar and come back and tell me.

Quantitative easing, ‘putting money’ into the economy (so
they tell you), is clearly an illusion, as how can the treatment for an ailing
economy be providing more money which you clearly don’t have. Where exactly
does this money come from, and if they’re rich enough to provide it then why is
the economy in trouble? It doesn’t make sense now, does it? They call it
‘quantitative easing’ as it sounds far better than ‘currency inflation’, which
is a lot closer, and simply forces up commodity prices making life more
expensive for everyone except the sellers of the commodities. Who are far from
the majority of course. If you even think about it for a moment, how can a
government put so much real money into the economy when it needs it, because it
hasn’t got it? It’s the same money of course, all they are doing is redividing
the numbers to look better until it all blows up in the inevitable inflation as
no more capital has ever appeared, exactly like shifting the money around in a
pyramid scheme. All variations on the theme. If the government actually had the
billions the papers tell you they put in the economy every year why don’t they
just divide it equally and give it to each person directly? Unless and until
they do then you know it’s not real money as it’s only the people who need it,
not the banks and investment companies it actually goes to, and it doesn’t
increase the economy as it makes everyone else poorer from low interest rates
and high prices, so simply shifts the same money away from the people.

Hopefully you will get the idea from a few examples, and apply
the bus lane formula to any other cheat you find in life, and spread the word.
People ripping you off won’t advertise it, my last interview showed the
government are actually as bad as any of the crooks, so they are at least as
likely to do it and need watching for every policy. They have to make it look
good, and massive corporations and governments alike have all the resources
they need to provide a massive façade for the hell they’ve provided behind it.
The entire illusion of equality, wealth redistribution, renewables, low
interest rates giving people more money (they don’t, it’s proved), are all
either robbing Peter to pay Paul, putting people in positions they didn’t work
for or deserve, telling you it’s raining when they’re peeing on your head, are
all variations on a single theme. Taking a ripoff and making it look like it’s
helping and you have to have it. Once your pocket’s been picked it’s an
expensive lesson and too late to get it back, so learn the principle first and
don’t let them near it.

Wednesday, 11 November 2015

The 21st century has produced a slew of worthless neologisms, this is what they actually mean:

I was assigned male/female at birth - I am a boy/girl
Carbon footprint- How much can we tax you
Transition- Have your vital organs excised to collude with a mental disorder rather than treat it
Carbon trading/credits- How much can we tax you without you noticing?
Wind turbine- ugly looking machine to extract money and taxes
Islamophobia- You must tolerate diabolical behaviour from Muslims at all costs
Homophobia- You must support every act ever carried out by a homosexual at all costs
Misogyny- You must be positive about women at all costs
Sexism- You must accept women are not just as good as men but better
Equal rights- equal misery
Equality of wealth- poverty
Genderfluid- batshit crazy
Safe space- exclusion zone
Diversity- everyone not like you
Multiculturalism- everyone's welcome except your people
Challenged- disabled
Liberal- fascist
Anti-fascist- fascist
Tolerant- fascist
Sustainable- shortage
Clean energy- no energy
Solar panels- virtue signalling on your roof
Pro-Palestinian- Nazi sympathiser
Boycott- Nazi sympathiser
Zionist cabal- Jewish people
Palestinians- Arabs in Israel and around its borders
Casual racism- making a joke
Causing offence- speaking the truth in public
White privilege- Black failure
Check your privilege- Give us your money
Progressive- Luddite
Equal opportunities policy- Ethnic minorities, gays, women and the disabled come first
Nuclear free zone- Local virtue signalling
Low Emission Zone- You must pay us even more
Bus lane- half a road
Cycle lane- quarter of a road
Mini-Holland scheme- gulag
Diversity training- brainwashing
People of color (sic)- coloured people (no, I can't see the difference either)
Racial diversity- every race but white
Renewables- nothing
Green jobs- unpaid voluntary work
Green economy- third world economy
Diversity officer- thought policeman
Microaggression- I just made that one up (I wish...)